Factors other than CO2 that affect Earth's temperature.

[TennTradition]

I thought Inhoffe is questioning the "catastropic" aspect of Earth mean temperature. Al Gore and company want to cut off all debate entirely.

I get the strong impression that Inhoffe is questioning all things GW...otherwise why parade out the temperature drives CO2, not the other way around arguments?

Is 550 ppm nearly double present ppm levels??

No...550 ppm is twice preindustrial levels...we're at almost 400 now, up from about 280.

If anything good happens out of this, I hope it will lead to more government funding of physics.

And I mean pure physics, not physics with political strings attached as is now the case in most instances.

I think that there is excellent basic science funding that could be spread all-around. But, physics certainly has a lot to contribute, particularly for experimental, high-risk high-reward energy technology.

One of my children had a choice of a free ride at any University

That's a pretty sweet deal...I hope that it worked out well in the end.

He recommended engineering because "wall street is full of physicists" because of lack of funding because government is the main source funds (and stingy somewhat while being so magnanimous in other areas) because private industry wants to research in areas where they can gain advantage by copyright or patent and physics discoveries may get you more funding, it isn't going to give you something you can sell and foundations are more apt to fund political action groups rather than pure science

Bridging that gap is often a problem....I agree.

 

[gsvol]

Thanks for being succinct, I know I do tend to run on. :blush:

I get the strong impression that Inhoffe is questioning all things GW...otherwise why parade out the temperature drives CO2, not the other way around arguments?

Why not question all things GW?

You don't get the impression Hanson and others are trying to ramrod their theory through for political reasons?

"Since approximately 80 percent of the rise in levels of carbon dioxide during the twentieth century occurred after the initial major rise in temperature, the increase in carbon dioxide cannot have caused the bulk of the past century's rise in temperature. Most of the warming must have been natural," explains Dr. Sallie Baliunas, co-author of the book. Dr. Baliunas is an astrophysicist at The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Deputy Director at the Mount Wilson Observatory.

"What is even more unsettling is the fact that the primary impact of the greenhouse effect of added carbon dioxide is in the lower atmosphere (rather than surface), but accurate measurements of that layer of air by U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA satellites over the last 22 years have not shown any hint of global warming. In other words, the whole idea of carbon dioxide causing global warming just does not add up,"

No...550 ppm is twice preindustrial levels...we're at almost 400 now, up from about 280.

Questions;
1) What approximate date is 'industrial' supposed to have begun?

2) Source of that data? (I believe 370 is more accurate but don't don't want to get hung up nitpicking one small thing like emain would)

3) So we are now at 1.43% of pre-industrial levels?
(according to that data)

4) What has been the maximum CO2 level scientifically recorded on Earth in past ages? (best data)

5) What is the maximum amount of CO2 our atmosphere will sustain? (theoretically)

6) If we were to reach that theoretical maximum, what would be the maximum mean temperature be in degrees above what it is now? (theoretically)

7) Why the decline in mean Earth temperature over the last ten years while atmospheric CO2 levels have risen?
(fact not theory)

I think that there is excellent basic science funding that could be spread all-around. But, physics certainly has a lot to contribute, particularly for experimental, high-risk high-reward energy technology.

There arguably are problems of methodology in making decisions of distribution of grant money.

With all due respect, the way you frame your statement seems to a bit like the thinking that led to Columbus' voyage, he set out for the Orient and found the Americas.

Instead of goal oriented research, why not just pure physics research??

And for goodness sakes don't ignore common sense.

Remember the Proxmire 'golden fleece' awards, one year the winner of the golden fleece was a federal grant in the amount of $880,000 to study 'whether gold fish became more aggressive on gin or tequila!!'

That's a pretty sweet deal...I hope that it worked out well in the end.

It did, thanks.

Are you working on your masters or doctorate if I may ask?

Bridging that gap is often a problem....I agree.

'Gap' might be better described as 'deep chasm.'

I said forty years ago the biggest problem faced by the American people is corruption in government, it has only gotten worse and it is still the number one threat to our freedom, imo.

 

[TennTradition]

Why not question all things GW?

You don't get the impression Hanson and others are trying to ramrod their theory through for political reasons?

One can question all things GW, I was just saying that Inhoffe does more than just question the "calamitous" effects of GW that are thrown out there by some.

Questions;
1) What approximate date is 'industrial' supposed to have begun?

It is somewhere in the 1800s that they use as a baseline...maybe 1850...not sure exactly.

2) Source of that data? (I believe 370 is more accurate but don't don't want to get hung up nitpicking one small thing like emain would)

I think that 370 is a bit low...it's probably more like 385..or maybe even higher...by now (when averaged out over the course of a year's cycle. It's pretty close to 400 now according to this plot.

3) So we are now at 1.43% of pre-industrial levels?
(according to that data)

I think that you mixed up your decimal point, we are at 1.43 times the pre-industrial level, or 143% of that level.

4) What has been the maximum CO2 level scientifically recorded on Earth in past ages? (best data)

CO2 levels have typically peaked at about 280 ppm over the past 400,000 years or so according to ice core data. I've included a graph below that shows the cycles...it is from wiki, but seems consistent with figures I've seen in more respectable but less accessible sources.

There may be better data...or data that shows higher levels...I'm not sure. I don't have most of my stuff at home...I seem to recall that we currently either have higher temperature or CO2 than has previously been recorded - and I think that it is higher CO2...I could certainly be wrong on that.

Edit: I found another source that shows data back to several hundred million years ago...with CO2 at 7000 ppm about 550 million years ago - I have no idea how that is measured...

5) What is the maximum amount of CO2 our atmosphere will sustain? (theoretically)

I'm not really sure what this limit would be. At atmospheric pressure, CO2 won't condense...so you would essentially have to pressurize the atmosphere (by extending it into space?? I'm not sure how that would work) before CO2 would condense...thus at first thought, a theoretical limit is tough to talk about.

6) If we were to reach that theoretical maximum, what would be the maximum mean temperature be in degrees above what it is now? (theoretically)

Don't know.

7) Why the decline in mean Earth temperature over the last ten years while atmospheric CO2 levels have risen?
(fact not theory)

1998 was a massively hot year and quite an anomaly (by any statistical standards I would think). Also 2008 was a pretty cool year by recent standards (but still right about the top 10 or so). The fluctuations in temperature year-in-year-out make discussions involving the words "over the last xxx years" very difficult to have. For example, we've warmed over the last 11 years. But, we've cooled over the last 10 years. Yet, we've warmed over the last 9 years. We are still basically on the 0.2 degree C / decade trend. This is a fairly good article, IMO...

I would also think that solar flux would also play a role (since it drives temperature...without it we would be a pretty cold rock)...but I don't have that analysis.

With all due respect, the way you frame your statement seems to a bit like the thinking that led to Columbus' voyage, he set out for the Orient and found the Americas.

Instead of goal oriented research, why not just pure physics research??

It is just my prediction of where some of the largest improvements to man will come in the next 20 years from physics research.

Are you working on your masters or doctorate if I may ask?

I'm working on my doctorate...I think that I should finish up somewhere inside 2 years from now...but it's hard to say. Some people finish in 4.5....some in 7.

'Gap' might be better described as 'deep chasm.'

No arguments here.

 

[gsvol]

One can question all things GW, I was just saying that Inhoffe does more than just question the "calamitous" effects of GW that are thrown out there by some.

Let me remind you of your initial reaction; "This statement is a complete joke. This is yet another attempt by Inhoffe to obscure the real discussion with a politics."

I think that you mixed up your decimal point, we are at 1.43 times the pre-industrial level, or 143% of that level.

Sorry I meant to say X x 1.43, careless of me to throw in the % sign. :blush:

I've included a graph below that shows the cycles...it is from wiki,

Wiccanpedia isn't much of a source of scientific data, great propaganda outlet though, especially for those who tend to be rather gullible!!!!!(So is google, with Al Gore as an unpaid advisor, certain buzz words will direct you to propaganda sites that promote his agenda.)

(I linked your url, which didn't for some reason show up on the board, and if you superimpose that graph upon a graph leading up to that time, it certainly leaves open the question of just how much man and industry have had to do with that trend and furthermore just how alarming that trend would be, some say not at all. (I agree) I think Shilling was one of the first alarmists btw, although I think he was predicting an oncoming ice age fwiw)

(maybe images don't show up within quotes, we'll see if this does

Citing the same original source, CO2 levels are tracking ocean temperatures in the short term, not vice versa.


Saying we now have the highest level of CO2 ever is incorrect!!

Here is a very good site giving a long term history of Earth's climate.



I would also think that solar flux would also play a role (since it drives temperature...without it we would be a pretty cold rock)...but I don't have that analysis.

The current theory is that Mars lost it's magnetic field allowing the solar wind to sweep away it's atmosphere into space. Where is Tesla when you need him??


Thanks for all the other preliminary data, maybe we will get into that in more detail, I think they measure ancient data from sea floor samples using dead plankton as the medium.

How Scientists are Fired and Intimidated

Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

It is just my prediction of where some of the largest improvements to man will come in the next 20 years from physics research.

I'll go along with that. As a matter of fact we would do well to study how we can use present knowledge to make improvements rather than radical counter productive political solutions.

Cite work of Lorenzen, a simple farmer who was totally energy independent and not a polluter.

Amory Lovins:

"So a good dose of conservative economic principles would get us even further than trying to give technologies we like subsidies as big as the ones we don't like are already getting."

"Of course, desubsidizing the whole energy sector would be a wonderful advance. Remember, the subsidies that renewables get are an attempt to catch up with much larger and ever-increasing subsidies that fossil and nuclear already enjoy. And those are permanent, whereas the renewable ones tend to be temporary, doled out a year or two at a time. The U.S. wind industry has been crashed at least three times, quite deliberately, by Congress messing with the tax credits from year to year and in a stop-and-go fashion. You can't run an industry that way and develop the capacity and the jobs. That's why we import most of our wind turbines."
---------------------------
What the US government is and has been doing for most of my lifetime eerily resembles Stalin's five ear plans that didn't work either!! fwiw jmho gs
---------------

More Lovins;
"I think the important policies need to happen at a state rather than a federal level."

(some of the things he has been saying for thirty years and we are talking about 'cap and trade???' life today is like living in a very bad science fiction movie, gs)

Lovins; "This is like a stupid multiple-choice-test question: Would you prefer to die of climate change or oil wars or nuclear holocaust? The right answer is none of the above. Because all three of those problems—climate change, oil dependence, and the spread of nuclear weapons—go away if we just use energy in a way that saves money, and since that transition is not costly but profitable, it can actually be led by business, and in its coevolution with civil society is the most dynamic force we have."

I'm working on my doctorate...I think that I should finish up somewhere inside 2 years from now...but it's hard to say. Some people finish in 4.5....some in 7.

What is your field?? Are you keeping the topic of your thesis under wraps??

Lovins had his from Cambridge at age 21.

I was born with ad PHD, (poor hungry and desperate.)

You've heard the story of the farmer's son who went off to college against the advice of his father and returned with a degree, the farmer asked; "what kind of degree?"

The son replied a "BS" degree and the father said, son that just means bull dung, you can get plenty of that down at the feed store on Saturday mornings and so the son went back to further his education a came back to say he now had an "MS" degree but the father said; son that just means "more of the same" so back the son went University.

At last he came home to tell his dad that he had the highest degree a man could get, a "PHD."

But the old farmer replied; all that means is "piled high and deep!" :hmm:

No arguments here.

What do you think an intelligent program to end run this problem would resemble??

 

[gsvol]

Just to quote two of many very wonderful books, readable by the layman, that tend to completely debunk environmental alarmism:

The Uncertain Science of Global Warming
S. George Philander

"The author explains complex scientific concepts in a precise language and with delightful illustrations.... The book is a pleasure to read."--Hans von Storch, Nature

"In Is the Temperature Rising?, S. George Philander examines the question historically, meteorologically, chemically and every other way. At the end of the well-written survey, you will know every detail of the subject. . ."--New Scientist

"Ought to be required reading for every eco-preacher."--John Emsley, Times Literary Supplement

"A book that can be easily understood by policymakers and scientists, but yet does not sacrifice any detail in background and process is most welcome. Philander may be the first author to write such a comprehensive book . . . Indeed, the author deserves immense credit for such a skillful presentation."--Geerat J. Vermeij, The Quarterly Review of Biology

"Philander writes in a fluid an engaging style and puts passion into his arguments for science literacy. The issues he touches on. . .will be of great interest both to those who are merely curious about nature and to those who are concerned about the policy issues."--Laurence A. Marschall, Gettysburg College

The Satanic Gases:
By Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling, Jr.

Global warming is vastly overrated as an environmental threat, argue leading climatologists Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. Former Vice President Gore staked much of his career on a largely mythical problem, they write.

The Satanic Gases marshals an impressive array of scientific data, studies, and analyses that argue, cogently and consistently, that the initial forecasts of rapid global warming were simply wrong. But, perhaps more important, the book points out that attempts to "fix" the forecast by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are even more misguided than the original projections.

The authors argue that the jury is already in on global warming, and the verdict is a modest heating over the 21st century -- very similar to what occurred during the last third of the 20th century. The vast majority of warming will take place in the winter, and within that season, the coldest, deadliest air masses will show the greatest change. The final third of the last century saw the greatest improvements in food supply, wealth, and longevity of life ever experienced. Some improvements actually resulted from changes in the earth’s natural greenhouse effect and others were totally insensitive to temperature. The authors argue that it is virtually impossible to reverse all of that progress with only a continued slow warming of the planet.

Unlike every other book on global warming, The Satanic Gases places the issue in its proper social and scientific context. Citing the pioneering work of historian of science Thomas Kuhn and economist James Buchanan, Michaels and Balling demonstrate that it was inevitable that global warming would be distorted by the political sphere and that most scientists would either stand mute or actually assist in that process. But, the authors argue, such distortions in science are always temporary, and inevitably the scientific community will concede that earlier forecasts dramatically exaggerated the threat of global warming.

"This book is wonderfully complete and timely. Michaels and Balling provide a compelling account of how the scientific reality of the effects of the rising level of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate, human welfare, food production, and the earth's biological productivity are being distorted by the political process."
--Sylvan Wittwer, Former Chairman, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council

"This lucid book by two climatologists dealing with the present status of our understanding of global warming should be read by every scientist and layman who has an interest in the topic, particularly if they have been led to believe that we face a potentially enormous catastrophe of human origin. Michaels and Balling demonstrate that the ongoing influence of human activity on climate will probably lie will within manageable bounds."
--Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University; Past President, National Academy of Sciences

"Michaels and Balling present a strong, well-informed contrarians' view of climate change. After reviewing the climate-change issue, the principles of climate, and the nature, limitations, and assumptions of various climate models, they... make a strong, well-referenced case for their conclusion that climate change will be relatively small and benign, and that the Kyoto Protocol is ill advised."
--Dallas L. Peck, Director Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey

 

[gsvol]

Five Major Arguments

1. There is no scientifically valid mechanism for CO2 causing global warming.

Propagandists say humans put 30% of the CO2 into the air, but new evidence is showing otherwise, and it is ridiculous to assume that the human input accumulates, while the natural input does not, particularly since oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to the most minute degree.

At the most technical level, scientists know there is no valid mechanism near the surface of the earth for CO2 to cause global warming, because CO2 absorbs all radiation available to it in about ten meters. So they contrived a mechanism high in the atmosphere to rationalize CO2 as the cause of global warming.

Supposedly, the all-important effect occurs high in the atmosphere where the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. In the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders do not overlap with the peaks for water vapor. But the reason why they do not overlap is because the shoulders start to disappear, which means they are of miniscule proportions.

Promoters of the global warming hype are claiming that such a miniscule amount of heat scattered in the upper atmosphere, with almost no ability to influence temperatures in the lower atmosphere, is supposedly the cause of global warming.

Propagandists say 41% of the heat leaving the surface of the earth is radiation. It's actually closer to 1%, but just look how ridiculous the result is even when using the 41%.

The upper atmosphere, where the fake mechanism is supposed to create global warming, has been cooling for the past 20 years.

The question is whether an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause an increase in temperature near the surface of the earth due to absorption of infrared radiation.

Near the surface of the earth, CO2 absorbs all radiation available to it in 10 meters. Doubling the CO2 would shorten the distance to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature. The first 20% of the CO2 in the atmosphere does most of what CO2 does. Therefore, promoters of the scheme needed to contrive a fake mechanism to explain how CO2 creates global warming.

Supposedly, the all-important effect occurs high in the atmosphere where the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. In the thinner atmosphere, the shoulders do not overlap with the peaks for water vapor. But the reason why they do not overlap is because the shoulders start to disappear, which means they are of miniscule proportions.

The shoulders of the peaks are said to not be saturated, which means more CO2 will result in more absorption. If not absorbed, the radiation would go into outer space. So the point is that less heat escapes into space, when CO2 levels increase.

Not only is this effect miniscule, but logic indicates that it would occur above the lower atmosphere (troposphere), where there would be no mixing with air near the surface of the earth.

The center of the peaks absorbs all available radiation in a short distance, while the shoulders absorb all available radiation in a longer distance. This means CO2 is still absorbing it's central wavelengths way above the stratosphere—something like 80-100 kilometers up.
(The numbers are evaluated more completely on the page titled 220 Trillionth °C.)

It also means shoulder molecules do the same thing nitrogen and oxygen do—they absorb radiation over a long distance. But shoulder molecules only absorb a narrow band of frequencies, while nitrogen and oxygen absorb a wide band of frequencies; and there are almost a million times as many nitrogen and oxygen molecules as shoulder molecules. Why would doing some more or what nitrogen and oxygen do result in global warming? It wouldn't.

For example, at a height of 16 kilometers, the atmospheric density is about one tenth that at sea level. The peak wavelengths should absorb completely in about 100 meters, because at ground level they absorb in 10 meters. Shoulders which are 5% as effective would absorb completely in 20 times as much distance, or 2 kilometers. When doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, they would do the same in 1 kilometer. The shorter distance is not an increase in heat. But does it add heat to the lower atmosphere, where the concern is? Not significantly, because 17 kilometers is in the stratosphere, which does not circulate significantly with the lower atmosphere.

Consider these quantities. Carbon dioxide is said to absorb 8% of the wavelengths emitted by black body radiation. The shoulders are assumed to be something like 5% of the 8%. But Heinz Hug says it is much less, and logic indicates he is right, since shoulders disappear higher in the atmosphere. Humans are responsible for 3% of the carbon dioxide being produced. Propagandists say humans put 30% of the CO2 into the air, but new evidence is showing otherwise, and it is ridiculous to assume that the human input accumulates, while the natural input does not, particularly since oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to the most minute degree.

Promoters of the global warming hype are claiming that such a miniscule amount of heat scattered in the upper atmosphere, with almost no ability to influence temperatures in the lower atmosphere, is supposedly the cause of global warming.

Even extreme numbers will not salvage the fraud.

The total atmosphere is said to heat the earth by 33°C.

Propagandists say 41% of the heat leaving the surface of the earth is radiation. It's actually closer to 1%, but just look how ridiculous the result is even when using the 41%.

Only 8% of the radiation is of a frequency which can be absorbed by CO2.

So 33°C X 41% X 8% = 1.08°C — The total heat that CO2 supposedly produces.

Then humans only put 3% of the CO2 into the air. Frauds say it accumulated to 30%; but even with the 30% figure, we must multiply the 1.08°C time 30%, which equals 0.32°C.

If then, the fake mechanism high in the atmosphere only concerns the shoulders on the absorption peaks, the fraction gets smaller. 5% is about what they are talking about. But even if it is 10%, the increase in global temperature caused by humans putting carbon dioxide into the air is an absolute maximum of 0.032°C.

These numbers are so undeniable, that the frauds produced another rationalization. They said water vapor multiplies the effect.

2. Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air through absorption equilibrium.

Two billion years ago, there was a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the air and carbonate in the oceans. Since then, most of it disappeared. It was converted to calcium carbonate in the oceans and ultimately limestone. Now there is a shortage. The human addition is slightly rescuing life and the planet by increasing the CO2. For propagandists to claim humans are destroying life and the planet through CO2 couldn't be a bigger fraud.

The acid fraud says that humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the oceans (through the atmosphere), and the CO2 converts to acid in the oceans, while corals are supposedly sensitive to acid and cannot produce their calcium shells in such an environment.

The most significant fact about the acid fraud is that there has never been real damage to corals found as a result of increased acidity of the oceans. The damage to coral reefs which has been occurring is caused by heat, disease, etc., but not by acidity of the ocean water.

Propagandists claim carbon dioxide is an acid, and acid destroys carbonate in the ocean, while corals require carbonate. But CO2 isn't just an acid; it is in equilibrium with carbonate. This means more CO2 entering the oceans results in more carbonate, not less.

There are two scientific frauds involved. One is to view CO2 only as an acid, as if it were equivalent to hydrochloric acid, while ignoring its equilibrium with carbonate. The other fraud is to ignore the huge buffering capacity of the oceans, which results in no detectable acidity from CO2 entering the oceans.

When adding up the absence of increased acidity with the equilibrium between CO2 and carbonate, the net result is that CO2 is increasing the carbonate which corals need, not decreasing it.

3. Water vapor would swamp any effects by CO2, if greenhouse gasses were really creating global warming.

I think we can agree on this.

 

[gsvol]

4. Short term effects are tracking with solar energy.

True, and long term effects will also and so far we haven't mastered nuclear fusion on Earth much less control of solar fusion.

I knew a guy back in the '60s who was making tons of money as a nuclear physicist but walked away, bought an old PU truck, a chain saw and sold firewood for a living.

His beef was that he had no voice in what decisions were made, that was all done by politicians and administrators.

He also thought we should put fission on hold and research fusion possibilities.

5. The IPCC is nothing but political hacks who override scientists to promote an agenda.

In other words, throughout the global warming hype, fraud is built endlessly upon fraud.

Such extreme fraud obviously requires motives. The agitators are population controllers who feel humans are using too many resources, and their answer is to shove people out of the economy. They feel that lying is justifiable for that purpose. So they start at the end point of claiming humans are creating a problem with carbon dioxide, and then they work backwards to rationalize the claim through fraud.

In spite of claims to the contrary, there is no consensus of scientists supporting the findings and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One of the great myths that gained currency during the recent debate on human-caused global warming is that higher temperatures will cause more droughts. However, continental rainfall largely has its origins in evaporation from the surrounding oceans. The fact is that evaporation increases by more than 6 per cent with each degree Celsius of sea surface temperature rise and, as a consequence, warmer temperatures will generate more rainfall. The great wind-blown sand dunes of Central Australia did not form during the warmer Holocene Optimum between 5000 and 10,000 years ago but during the colder, drier glacial period more than 20,000 years ago. During the Holocene Optimum the subtropical deserts of the world were blooming and teeming with life. In the past, a warmer world with higher sea surface temperatures has been beneficial and enhanced Australia’s summer monsoon and winter rainfall.

There are two essential pieces of information that the proponents of the theory of dangerous human-caused climate change do not discuss.

First, the impact statistics relate to largely unmanaged systems. For example, malaria was endemic throughout northern Europe before the draining of marsh lands and the imposition of good public health regimes. Would it not be important to implement appropriate public health measures in the countries still subject to these diseases in order to reduce their incidence, whether or not the world is getting warmer or cooler?

Second, it is legitimate to ask whether reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is the most sensible and cost-effective approach to controlling a range of endemic diseases.

Although the IPCC case for an unvarying climate, unless externally forced, rests on the performance of computer models, the proposition does not accord with either evidence or logic.

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, calls for abolishing the IPCC.

Excerpt: The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

Welcome to objectivescience.com

"Low Carbon Economy Act" (LCEA) 2007.

The bill ought to be called the "The Trillion Dollar Giveaway and Wealth Redistribution Act."

Using the pay-to-emit price, the GHG emissions allowances issued by the federal government in 2012 will have a potential market value of $80 billion. The annual market value of these government-issued allowances will rise to over $100 billion by 2018 and hit $130 billion in 2030. It will only take about 10 years – exclusive of any inflation – for value of the allowances issued by the government to exceed $1 trillion.

And incredible as it sounds, the bulk of these allowances – 76 percent for the first five years, declining to 47 percent by 2030 – will be given away at no charge to special interests including private industry, farmers and states. This global warming giveaway works out to a total of $1.34 trillion of free money – not adjusted for inflation – that would be handed out to global warming special interests from 2012-2030.

There can be no doubt that the purchasers of the auctioned allowances will simply pass along their higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices for all goods and services that involve the energy use – in other words, just about everything.

Another way to look at that recoupment is as a redistribution of wealth from consumers to those select entities eligible for the allowances.

.....perhaps you’ll note that the neither the LCEA nor any other law that Congress can pass is likely to force China, India, Brazil, Mexico and other developing nations from more than making up for the GHGs that the U.S. may reduce in the future. China just recently passed the U.S. in terms of GHG emissions and has publicly stated that it doesn’t intend to harm its economy by reducing its GHG emissions in the future.

In the end, the LCEA and its ilk will only have created a permanently, well-funded global warming industry that will never go away, regardless of scientific or climactic developments. Just imagine how politically powerful this industry could become – it already has our government, economy and personal liberties by the throat, even in its infancy.

 

[TennTradition]

I'm a bit confused by what you were saying about taking the data and superimposing...what exactly did you do?

As for the comments about CO2...I intended for my Edit comment to address the CO2 levels, it was quite clear to me after looking around and seeing data for several hundred million years ago. Levels are higher now than levels over the last 400,000 years or so...not sure about before that...but far enough back, levels were certainly higher.

"So a good dose of conservative economic principles would get us even further than trying to give technologies we like subsidies as big as the ones we don't like are already getting."

"Of course, desubsidizing the whole energy sector would be a wonderful advance. Remember, the subsidies that renewables get are an attempt to catch up with much larger and ever-increasing subsidies that fossil and nuclear already enjoy. And those are permanent, whereas the renewable ones tend to be temporary, doled out a year or two at a time. The U.S. wind industry has been crashed at least three times, quite deliberately, by Congress messing with the tax credits from year to year and in a stop-and-go fashion. You can't run an industry that way and develop the capacity and the jobs. That's why we import most of our wind turbines."

I like those statements about subsidies...it is put in a way that I haven't seen articulated as well before...and he makes an excellent point. One interesting note regarding wind and solar subsidies is that Congress either passed or is in negotiations to place a long-term level on the tax-credit...which should hopefully promote investment as it is more obvious what kind of energy landscape you will have when placing your investment.

What is your field?? Are you keeping the topic of your thesis under wraps??

Lovins had his from Cambridge at age 21.

I was born with ad PHD, (poor hungry and desperate.)

You've heard the story of the farmer's son who went off to college against the advice of his father and returned with a degree, the farmer asked; "what kind of degree?"

The son replied a "BS" degree and the father said, son that just means bull dung, you can get plenty of that down at the feed store on Saturday mornings and so the son went back to further his education a came back to say he now had an "MS" degree but the father said; son that just means "more of the same" so back the son went University.

At last he came home to tell his dad that he had the highest degree a man could get, a "PHD."

But the old farmer replied; all that means is "piled high and deep!" :hmm:

Yep...that story seems very familiar, actually . My PhD work is in chemical engineering. My thesis work focuses on the computational analysis of heterogeneous catalysis through quantum chemistry, with a specific focus on designing new catalysts for better hydrogen production through steam methane reforming.

What do you think an intelligent program to end run this problem would resemble??

There is a persistent valley of death between pure, basic science and applied science products, leading to the fundamental problem of investment gaps and funding sources. But, I think that a lot of this stems from the view that products must pass from basic science to applied science in a very linear fashion...but that view really isn't accurate. We've seen many basic science advances lead very quickly and in round-about ways to advances in biology and electronics, for example.

But, getting back to your question - I think that stable funding for the basic sciences combined with a more focused innovation system (one that combines local, state, federal, university, and industrial entities) would go a long way toward increasing confidence in basic science funding while capturing some of the losses in the Darwinian Sea between basic and applied science.

 

[gsvol]

I'm a bit confused by what you were saying about taking the data and superimposing...what exactly did you do?

Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

CO2 levels and surface temperature graphs for the;


last 50,000 yrs.
last 2,000 yrs.
last 500 yrs.
last 200 yrs.
last 100 yrs.
last 50 yrs.


An explanation.

The way that wiki graph is drawn it might appear we are about to come to a boil but if you put that in perspective there is nothing to be alarmed about.

This graph puts mankind's part of the equation in better perspective.

Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

If the rise in in CO2 levels predict an alarming rise in Earth temperatures, why hasn't this already happened in the last 150 or so years??

The average temperature has not followed CO2 levels!!

As for the comments about CO2...I intended for my Edit comment to address the CO2 levels, it was quite clear to me after looking around and seeing data for several hundred million years ago. Levels are higher now than levels over the last 400,000 years or so...not sure about before that...but far enough back, levels were certainly higher.

About 460 million years ago CO2 levels were at about 4,400 ppm and Earth temperature was about the same as today.

Link to temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT)

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)



" What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate."

"It's (effort to reverse climate change) really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change."


Professor Jane E. Francis

* Earth Sciences, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, England

I like those statements about subsidies...it is put in a way that I haven't seen articulated as well before...and he makes an excellent point. One interesting note regarding wind and solar subsidies is that Congress either passed or is in negotiations to place a long-term level on the tax-credit...which should hopefully promote investment as it is more obvious what kind of energy landscape you will have when placing your investment.

Doubtless the wind mills off Cape Cod will be opposed!!

There are many other options for energy efficiency not addressed upon which I could write a whole book.

Future buildings could use such technology to their advantage, from single dwellings to as large as you would desire.

(I'd like to discuss practical applications that have been done already and have produced desirable effects.)

Yep...that story seems very familiar, actually . My PhD is in chemical engineering. My thesis work focuses on the computational analysis of heterogeneous catalysis through quantum chemistry, with a specific focus on designing new catalysts for better hydrogen production through steam methane reforming.

You told me chemical engineering already, my bad.

Hope all that doesn't have to do with attaching baggies to cow 's posteriors and taxing bovine flatulence!

I'll get back to you on; "heterogeneous catalysis through quantum chemistry, with a specific focus on designing new catalysts for better hydrogen production through steam methane reforming."

You aren't talking about working with quarks are you??

(Looks like some grant friendly buzz words in there, but then that's the name of the game.)

I've seen some film on energy self sufficient dairy farms using methane and other experimental systems using micro-organisms that produce methane.

I think that in the future there will be lots of different solutions but while we are making that transition, I tend to think of using fossil fuels as recycling rather than bringing about the apocalypse. Now using a major portion of Earth's food stuffs for fuel will and already has brought about famine, war, death and pestilence.
(banning DDT did the same.)

I've known of nothing good in the past that has happened with fear being the main motivator that turned out well.

There is a persistent valley of death between pure, basic science and applied science products, leading to the fundamental problem of investment gaps and funding sources. But, I think that a lot of this stems from the view that products must pass from basic science to applied science in a very linear fashion...but that view really isn't accurate. We've seen many basic science advances lead very quickly and in round-about ways to advances in biology and electronics, for example.

I can't argue with that except for the ignorant endangered species laws and EPA policies which turn a blind eye to big corporations and screw the little guy to the wall, etc.

Another thing is if you study funding sources enough, you find that ultimately we have only one funding source and that isn't good.

Did you ever understand that when a nation uses a private central banking system such as the federal reserve, that the nation perpetually pays interest just for the heck of it??? Makes no sense.

But, getting back to your question - I think that stable funding for the basic sciences combined with a more focused innovation system (one that combines local, state, federal, university, and industrial entities) would go a long way toward increasing confidence in basic science funding while capturing some of the losses in the Darwinian Sea between basic and applied science.

We probably have a meeting of the minds here but it would be just as easy to say we need some intelligent design in public policy vs can we evolve from the pond scum thinking as displayed in the political theater!!

"(one that combines local, state, federal, university, and industrial entities) " Great if one entity such as the federal government doesn't call all the shots.

 

[TennTradition]

You told me chemical engineering already, my bad.

Hope all that doesn't have to do with attaching baggies to cow 's posteriors and taxing bovine flatulence!

I'll get back to you on; "heterogeneous catalysis through quantum chemistry, with a specific focus on designing new catalysts for better hydrogen production through steam methane reforming."

You aren't talking about working with quarks are you??

(Looks like some grant friendly buzz words in there, but then that's the name of the game.)

I should have said my PhD *work* is in chemical engineering, not my PhD, I've edited the above post...I think that it was clear based on our previous conversations..but I didn't want to leave that one undone.

Maybe I'm too entrenched in the system now ... but I don't think there are actually too many grant-friendly words in there (if I wanted to throw them in, they would probably be hydrogen economy and carbon capture and sequestration since those are tied to what I do but not actually the focus of my work).

The basic focus of my project is finding new catalysts to promote the conversion of methane into hydrogen (and carbon dioxide). About 95% of the hydrogen that is made in the US is made through steam methane reforming (over Nickel catalysts).

As for the "buzz words" ... heterogeneous catalysis is the standard way of referring to using solid metal particles (as opposed to particles in solution which is homogeneous catalysis) to catalyze a reaction - reactions that would otherwise require extremely high temperatures and long times to have any appreciable conversion.

As opposed to experiment, we study the system using quantum chemistry (computations) because the very high temperatures and pressures in the steam reforming reaction make traditional experimental techniques ill-suited for studying the catalytic surface. The problem is that Nickel catalysts are very susceptible to destruction because carbon cokes up on the surface. So, by studying the reactions that take place on the catalyst surface, we are working toward identifying new Nickel catalysts that are doped with another metal (such as Gold or Silver) that show resistance to the carbon formation problem..but still show a high activity toward our desired steam reforming reaction.

Another thing is if you study funding sources enough, you find that ultimately we have only one funding source and that isn't good.

Did you ever understand that when a nation uses a private central banking system such as the federal reserve, that the nation perpetually pays interest just for the heck of it??? Makes no sense.

I do see the paying interest part to some degree now...though I must admit that I don't understand enough about the whole system to fully appreciate the alternatives.

 

[gsvol]

I should have said my PhD *work* is in chemical engineering, not my PhD, I've edited the above post...I think that it was clear based on our previous conversations..but I didn't want to leave that one undone.

You were clear on that, I just had forgotten you had already said your field was chem eng.

Maybe I'm too entrenched in the system now ... but I don't think there are actually too many grant-friendly words in there (if I wanted to throw them in, they would probably be hydrogen economy and carbon capture and sequestration since those are tied to what I do but not actually the focus of my work).


Because I exceeded the board limit for images, I had to edit out my smilies, which count as images.

You seem to be level headed, I was poking fun part of the time.

The basic focus of my project is finding new catalysts to promote the conversion of methane into hydrogen (and carbon dioxide). About 95% of the hydrogen that is made in the US is made through steam methane reforming (over Nickel catalysts).


Why not more produced from H2O???

One could just use the methane to power generators for an energy source to separate the hydrogen and oxygen.

What do you do with the CO2??

Pardon me if any of my questions are dumbass, how am I going to learn if I don't ask??

As for the "buzz words" ... heterogeneous catalysis is the standard way of referring to using solid metal particles (as opposed to particles in solution which is homogeneous catalysis) to catalyze a reaction - reactions that would otherwise require extremely high temperatures and long times to have any appreciable conversion.

Enlightening, (to me) thanks.

What's the current market price of platinum??

My wife wrote grant applications for most of ten years to fund a project of which she was the director, buzz words are just a fact of life, might as well get used to it.

Whoever is scanning the grant applications is an administrator that is most likely doing their best to spread x amount of dollars around so that it will do the most good, you can't fault them for not knowing everything about everything, if the subject is something they don't know that much about, then they look for those buzz words.

I will say one inherent problem of the system is that there is more incentive to come in over budget than under budget when next years grant application is made whether the funding source is government or an NGO.


As opposed to experiment, we study the system using quantum chemistry (computations) because the very high temperatures and pressures in the steam reforming reaction make traditional experimental techniques ill-suited for studying the catalytic surface. The problem is that Nickel catalysts are very susceptible to destruction because carbon cokes up on the surface. So, by studying the reactions that take place on the catalyst surface, we are working toward identifying new Nickel catalysts that are doped with another metal (such as Gold or Silver) that show resistance to the carbon formation problem..but still show a high activity toward our desired steam reforming reaction.


Sounds like a good scenario for a sitcom.

I do see the paying interest part to some degree now...though I must admit that I don't understand enough about the whole system to fully appreciate the alternatives.

An explanation.

You mentioned earlier that atmospheric CO2 levels were higher than has been experienced for the last 400,000 years.

One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!

Graphs of temps and CO2 levels for the last 400,000 years and some explanations.

While your statement is true, reaching the conclusion that we are going to experience catastrophic global warming is far fetched in the extreme.

1) That has never happened unless you go back hundreds of millions of years when there was an extreme amount of volcanic activity and even then the problem for human life on Earth wouldn't have been high temperatures.

2) Increased CO2 levels might just be a very good thing for life on Earth.

3) It's easy to take data out of context and say; 'humans are putting x tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.' However just cherry picking data and producing scary propaganda is science only in the realm of political science.

 

[bop_rocco]

If it is real why is most of the record highs in the early 1900's. I think its all a cycle and its just time.

 

[gsvol]

If it is real why is most of the record highs in the early 1900's. I think its all a cycle and its just time.

And I agree.

Unfortunately our country is now controlled by enviro-nazis.